IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

LAWRENCE LANDRUM, Case No. 2:12-cv-859 

Petitioner, Judge Thomas M. Rose 

v. 

 

CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden, 

Chillicothe Correctional Institution, 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS 

(DOCS. 27, 34); ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS; TRANSFER ORDER (DOC. 24) AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON RECOMMITTAL (DOC. 32); AND 

TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FOR DETERMINATION 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) WHETHER IT MAY PROCEED 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Objections (Docs. 27, 34) filed by 

Petitioner Lawrence Landrum (“Landrum”) to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations; 

Transfer Order (“Supplemental Report”) (Doc. 24) and Supplemental Opinion on Recommittal 

(“Supplemental Opinion”) (Doc. 32). In the Supplemental Report, Magistrate Judge Michael R. 

Merz withdrew his prior Report and Recommendations (Doc. 19), which recommended that the 

Court grant the Respondent Warden’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), and ordered that this case be 

transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for determination under 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) whether Landrum’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) may proceed. 

The Magistrate Judge stayed transfer of the case pending the Court’s consideration of any 

objections to the Supplemental Report. (Doc. 24 at PageID 294.) 

After Landrum filed Objections (Doc. 27) to the Supplemental Report, the Court 

Case: 2:12-cv-00859-TMR-MRM Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/16/16 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

recommitted the matter to the Magistrate Judge for further analysis. (Doc. 23.) The Magistrate 

Judge provided the requested analysis in the Supplemental Opinion (Doc. 32), which addressed 

Landrum’s Objections, stood by the analysis in the Supplemental Report, and continued the stay of 

the transfer order pending the Court’s consideration of any further objections. (Doc. 32 at PageID 

433.) Landrum filed Objections (Doc. 34) to the Supplemental Opinion, in response to which the 

Warden filed a Response (Doc. 35). This matter is now ripe for the Court’s review. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has 

made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that 

Landrum’s Objections (Doc. 27) to the Supplemental Report (Doc. 24) and Objections (Doc. 34) 

to the Supplemental Opinion (Doc. 32) are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. 

The Court ADOPTS the Supplemental Report (Doc. 24) and Supplemental Opinion (Doc. 32) in 

their entirety and rules as follows: 

 Stay of the transfer order in the Supplemental Report (Doc. 24) is 

TERMINATED; and 

 Because Landrum’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) is 

second or successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), this 

case shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit for determination under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) 

whether it may proceed in this Court. 

 DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Tuesday, February 16, 2016. 

s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case: 2:12-cv-00859-TMR-MRM Doc #: 37 Filed: 02/16/16 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>